U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-09-2010, 08:34 AM
 
1,072 posts, read 2,307,933 times
Reputation: 943

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pheaton View Post
Does the law change my views of the morality of the situation? No. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right or moral for that matter. But the law isn't interested in morals, is it? Or is it? Does the law have some kind of responsiblity to uphold a moral code? Does the law have the responsiblity to uphold the rights of the common good? Legally, no, they don't have to do that, whether or not they should is kind of where this debate is seated.

Does the upholding of the constitutuion have any bearing on me? Yes of course. The law does have the responibility to protect the fundamenal common law that we inherited from the english courts, the foundation to which our laws are built, the constitution. I'm trying to defend the constitution just the same as you are. What I'm suggesting to you that under that common law the requirement of a marriage is the complementarity of a male and female and their willingness to be joined legally. Love was assumed, but not required, the fact that gay people love each other and want to be married gives them no legal backing, you said it yourself you can't make laws based on feelings. Gay marriage is not protected under the constution, nor does it have any thing to do with equality, because by the very nature of the persons, they are incompatible with the common law definition of marriage. The state meaning of marriage is not love, or good feelings, it's complementarity and a mutual agreement.

I feel that all of our laws are judeo-Christian in their nature. At least up until recent history when we started making laws based on feelings and letting everyone do what they want to do and calling that true freedom.
Pheaton, I have to admit that I have a hard time following your arguments. Maybe after another cup of coffee I'll be more coherent .

Gay marriage is protected under the fourteenth amendment with equal treatment, opportunity, protection under the law, liberty, etc. for everyone.

Part of why I can't follow your logic is that you are using your own set of opinions and definitions. You are also using a lot of so called religion and morals to defend your opinions, rather than being objective.

Objectively, I can see your point of view. Also objectively, I can see how one of the best things about living in this country is that the rest of us are not required to live our lives according to the whims and opinions of one person or institution.

It's called freedom. You are free to be bigoted (and you are, it is evident in every one of your posts). And I respect your freedom to be that way. Most people are to a certain degree. I've met gay people who are quite bigoted and say horrible things about heterosexuals as a whole. But the key is in the freedom of each person - as long as that freedom doesn't infringe upon the rights of another. That is why we are not free to murder or steal, but we are free to start a business or go to whatever place of worship we wish.

Yes, the foundations of our country and our culture were judeo-christian. Obviously our founding mothers and fathers were not Buddhist. However that does not mean that everyone has to be Jewish or Christian. In fact it is built into our constitution that our government and laws will not be determined by religion. That was a big part of why we separated in the first place...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-09-2010, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Omaha, NE
1,048 posts, read 2,138,104 times
Reputation: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsrich98 View Post
WOW!!! This is truly ignorant and offensive. I don't know what kind of bathroom you go into but I'm not usually in a position where anyone can see my junk. If you are afraid of someone seeing your package in the restroom, you are either using it wrong; or perhaps more likely, you've got something to hide.
I said it was a stretch. .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2010, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Omaha, NE
1,048 posts, read 2,138,104 times
Reputation: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by marmom View Post

Gay marriage is protected under the fourteenth amendment with equal treatment, opportunity, protection under the law, liberty, etc. for everyone.
But I'm saying that sam-sex marriage is not covered under that. Going back to the male/female complementarity required by our inherited english laws. 2 men or 2 women violate that complementarity nature and therefore does not at common law meet the requirements of a valid marriage. The only way to expand recognition is through legislation, because at default, it's not recoginized. Nebraska law is a clarification of common law, not a stripping away of rights. States that elevate a homosexual marriage to the status of being recognized can do that, but it's simply not a given right under our legal system.

Quote:
Part of why I can't follow your logic is that you are using your own set of opinions and definitions. You are also using a lot of so called religion and morals to defend your opinions, rather than being objective.

Objectively, I can see your point of view. Also objectively, I can see how one of the best things about living in this country is that the rest of us are not required to live our lives according to the whims and opinions of one person or institution.
Likewise. Why are the "rest of us" required to live according to the whime and opinions of homosexuals?

Quote:
It's called freedom. You are free to be bigoted (and you are, it is evident in every one of your posts). And I respect your freedom to be that way. Most people are to a certain degree. I've met gay people who are quite bigoted and say horrible things about heterosexuals as a whole. But the key is in the freedom of each person - as long as that freedom doesn't infringe upon the rights of another. That is why we are not free to murder or steal, but we are free to start a business or go to whatever place of worship we wish.
You may have missed the part where I've said that I think homosexuals and heterosexuals alike have distorted views on freedom and love. I have a distorted view. I hope to recognize more and more the true meaning of Christian love, but it's a work in progress. I'm not trying to bigoted, I'm trying to say that there is more to life than society's counterfeit version of love. That there is a deeper meaning to freedom than just doing whatever we want to do. Everything we do affects everyone in some way.

Quote:
Yes, the foundations of our country and our culture were judeo-christian. Obviously our founding mothers and fathers were not Buddhist. However that does not mean that everyone has to be Jewish or Christian. In fact it is built into our constitution that our government and laws will not be determined by religion. That was a big part of why we separated in the first place...
This is true. . But until religions start condoning murder, or rape there will always be laws that are by nature "christian". The old testment mentions eye for an eye. Vengence was all but encouraged. The concept that murder is always wrong came later. The seperation clause was more to protect the church from the government infringement. Not to abolish any trace of Christianity in our laws and government.

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future .. upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God.” - James Madison 1787.


“We are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being … No Constitutional requirement makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against the efforts to widen the scope of religious influence. The government must remain neutral when it comes to competition between sects … The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State.” - 1952 – US Supreme Court defines the “Separation of Church and State.”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2010, 10:42 AM
 
Location: Here
704 posts, read 1,613,889 times
Reputation: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by pheaton View Post
I said it was a stretch. .

That's not what SHE said... .

Ok I'll stop being juvenile and leave this thread. I can't seem to be helpful, so I will go.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2010, 11:09 AM
 
6,486 posts, read 5,669,918 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by marmom View Post
I cannot even wrap my mind around gay marriage being an issue. It could not be more of a non-issue. It is appalling that gay people don't have the same rights as everyone else in this country.
They have EXACTLY the same rights that I do when it comes to marriage--no more, no less. Can you name a right they don't have?
Quote:

As for the whole argument of religion...well, people are entitled to believe what they want, but that is a completely separate issue from the rights of this great country's citizens.

IMO, homosexuality is a part of the Divine plan. God creates all of us (in His image, right?), and does not make mistakes. There have always been homosexuals. There are even homosexual animals. All God's creation.
Interesting how you say religion is irrelevant, then you give your view on it.

So...to answer your comment....Why do you think God condemns what you say he planned for?

And why are you justifying man's behavior according to animal behavior? Is cannibalism also ok? Stealing food from the weak?
Quote:
There are more Christian heterosexuals who make a mockery of both marriage and Christianity than I can comprehend. And don't get me started on what some of these people do to the sacred blessing of parenthood.
Are there? Do you have statistics to back that up? Last I saw, gay people tended to have many more partners over the course of a lifetime than heteros.
Quote:
What would Jesus say about homosexuals?
He would say it was wrong. He is God. The Bible records God condemning it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2010, 12:11 PM
 
48 posts, read 87,633 times
Reputation: 34
Calvinist, your semantic games with the rights of gays to marry are both juvenile and boring. You know what she means and so does everyone else who has commented.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2010, 12:17 PM
 
6,486 posts, read 5,669,918 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelaw08 View Post
Calvinist, your semantic games with the rights of gays to marry are both juvenile and boring. You know what she means and so does everyone else who has commented.
I think it proves a point--one that she and others here apparently just don't care to think about. But then, there are no victims if we're being objective, are there?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2010, 01:42 PM
 
Location: Here
704 posts, read 1,613,889 times
Reputation: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
He would say it was wrong. He is God. The Bible records God condemning it.
Wait.. Jesus is God. I thought he was the son of God?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2010, 01:58 PM
 
1,072 posts, read 2,307,933 times
Reputation: 943
Quote:
Originally Posted by pheaton View Post
Likewise. Why are the "rest of us" required to live according to the whime and opinions of homosexuals?
No one is required to live according to the whims and opinions of homosexuals. If same-sex marriage were legal, I promise that no one would make you marry someone who shares your gender .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2010, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,908 posts, read 19,079,648 times
Reputation: 9115
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelaw08 View Post
Calvinist, your semantic games with the rights of gays to marry are both juvenile and boring. You know what she means and so does everyone else who has commented.
Let them keep making that argument. They tried it in the Prop 8 case and basically got laughed out of the courtroom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:35 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top